Author
Topic: Why God Doesn't Heal Amputees (Read 10448 times)

I think I've just discovered why Biblegod doesn't heal amputees. It's because of this post. From the moment of creation, Biblegod knew I would make this post and that is why we don't see healed amputees;

I, Ron Jeremy, forbid Biblegod from healing amputees. I forbid him for all time from healing amputees. If Biblegod regrows a human's limb I will destroy him utterly.

I think that covers it theists? Just refer atheists to this post in future when asked any awkward questions.

Nb: This answer is from a "non-cross" slave and worshiper of God. Don’t rely on pagan institutions to reflect on my answer. If you need solid evidence please ask for it.

____ Because amputees have what it takes to heal themselves if they wish. “Amputees” is not only a physical condition, it is also a “lack of gratitude” condition since “stronger feelings” and “universal awareness” are also “nonphysical” human organs, otherwise why we have explored the universe and dogs haven’t and why we wrote symphonies and camels haven’t? Any person without gratitude is an amputee who lacks appreciation, until he/she change (hopefully). Why God doesn’t heal those too? Because “again” amputees have what it takes to heal themselves if they wish.

In the bodily sense, they are healed your amputees, since we already concluded that the “nonphysical” awareness and senses are also an organ. God Heals physical loss by a “nonphysical” compensation with increased determination and higher hopes, boosting those elements more than enough to compensate for any physical loss. Would you feel frustrated and missing a piece because a bird can fly and you can't? You call it subconscious, I call it “nonphysical” organs. I’ve seen amputated animals struggle three times more than un-amputees, and running twice as much and sometimes faster than un-amputated animals. I’ve seen amputated people all my life and none of them looked like desperate to be healed but would do it if they can, more determined and always with higher hopes until they died, in their person they are healed. They did not invent the psychological cure which boosts their hopes and determination higher, they did not buy it from a clinic, they received it from God, always, naturally, the maker of nature as we know it and as we don't know it.

In case you missed the point, this pre-life is a self-healing process and God made it this way, otherwise He would've put us all in His house from the start. Amputated or not, raped or not, aggressed or not, poor or not, billionaire or not, rapist or not, thieve or not, corrupted or not, ungrateful or not… we are born healed, we maintain or reclaim that or not.

- this pre-life is a self-healing process and God made it this way - He would've put us all in His house from the start - we are born healed, we maintain or reclaim that or not

Don't you see how many rationalizations are necessary in order for religious teachings to make sense. Christianity is the same. Sure, the idea of love and helping each other, and the idea of "sin" that makes life harder, these are good, common teachings to all religions.

I am guessing you are Muslim by faith. Surely right now the schisms in interpreting Islam leave many on different, and, unfortunately dangerous paths. For myself, I just ask people to approach our world-wide differing beliefs with open minds. How hard is that?

____ Because amputees have what it takes to heal themselves if they wish. “Amputees” is not only a physical condition, it is also a “lack of gratitude” condition since “stronger feelings” and “universal awareness” are also “nonphysical” human organs, otherwise why we have explored the universe and dogs haven’t and why we wrote symphonies and camels haven’t? Any person without gratitude is an amputee who lacks appreciation, until he/she change (hopefully). Why God doesn’t heal those too? Because “again” amputees have what it takes to heal themselves if they wish.

HA! What a comedic cop-out. An amputee is not a physical condition? How did you determine this?

What you are demonstrating here is called RATIONALIZING. You have assumed your belief system is true in advance and are attempting to bend, twist, and contort your superstition in any way possible to avoid refutation and make your belief immune from evidence or being falsified. It is a dishonest tactic because you wouldn't do this with any other religion except the one you think is true (nor would you practice this kind of spin for a salesman at your door selling magic potions).

In the bodily sense, they are healed your amputees, since we already concluded that the “nonphysical” awareness and senses are also an organ. God Heals physical loss by a “nonphysical” compensation with increased determination and higher hopes, boosting those elements more than enough to compensate for any physical loss.

Would you feel frustrated and missing a piece because a bird can fly and you can't? You call it subconscious, I call it “nonphysical” organs. I’ve seen amputated animals struggle three times more than un-amputees, and running twice as much and sometimes faster than un-amputated animals. I’ve seen amputated people all my life and none of them looked like desperate to be healed but would do it if they can, more determined and always with higher hopes until they died, in their person they are healed. They did not invent the psychological cure which boosts their hopes and determination higher, they did not buy it from a clinic, they received it from God, always, naturally, the maker of nature as we know it and as we don't know it.

More SPIN and rationalization. The "healed their hearts" argument has already been dealt with and refuted. Please stop using it because it assumes your position is true from the outset and sets up an irrational standard of investigation - one which cannot be falsified. Anyone, from any religion, can do the same thing you are trying to do. Would you buy their argument if they did? How absurd.

Second, this idea of "the nonphysical" is also absurd. Please demonstrate 1) what this is, and 2) how you think you know that this 'thing' exists. So far, these are just assumptions with no backing.

In case you missed the point, this pre-life is a self-healing process and God made it this way, otherwise He would've put us all in His house from the start. Amputated or not, raped or not, aggressed or not, poor or not, billionaire or not, rapist or not, thieve or not, corrupted or not, ungrateful or not… we are born healed, we maintain or reclaim that or not.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate...

This is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. Please look it up. It is irrational and fails.

a – if you read again you’ll notice that I wrote (amputees is not “only” a physical condition,…).

If you come across a story during a live conversation about a man who froze a lake with his cold breath you wouldn’t believe it until the point when you realize that they were talking about “superman the movie”, then you realize that it is fiction based. My words are not my rationalizations, they are based on scriptures which I happen to believe in after reading, and which were written 1400 years before superman and some of them much much earlier. Since we have a “knowledge” gap between us, I prefer to keep the Godly scriptures out of our discussion as much as possible and remain in the light of us and “awareness” to try to push my points. Then anyone who feels interested can do a proper academic search and read the revelation.

b – from my point of view, It is clear that I brought forth a rich conclusion of the “non-physiological” organs, unlike the scottsman fallacy. Another exp: -We can say that the composed tissue, nerves, muscles, blood… make the hand an organ of function. With the hand we can build a wall. With what can we go to space? Not with the hand of course, because the gorilla also have a hand and isn’t able even to count to three. We go to space with invisible organs; awareness, intelligence, motivation, which the gorilla also have but not good enough. So it is conclusive that there are non-physical organs and non-physical matter, everywhere. hai capito? You can refuse my conclusion as much as anti-matter was an irrational fantasy before its discovery. Anti-matter is spiritual, can’t you see? It is a step inside the spiritual realm. What is “spiritual” if everything un-proved with an equation doesn’t exist? When anti-matter was seen, spirituality has been proven. Spirituality is the realm beyond the physical and the organic, thus anti-matter. Please lets go forward with this correspondence or I’ll ignore you. I can’t make a blind man see his heart if he’s dead.

c – same as (a)

d – I can’t resist the temptation, I fell victim ? I have to say this; The scriptures which my points are based upon happen to be credible since they also tell me that “all matter of earth and heavens were stuck together in a singularity and God cleft them asunder and created every living thing from water” another place He says “the same way We made that creation, We will repeat it again as much as We please” and another place “We created the spaces and earth (as in solid matter in it) and We’re truly expanding it” and more importantly in few other places “We will show the unbelievers that this revelation is divinely revealed by showing them in it, signs in themselves and in the horizons until it becomes clear to them that it is truly divine from their creator” and “…for every appointed generation in history there are appointed proofs of the divinity of this revelation”. In case you’re wondering why all the trouble, it is to make sure that only the grateful creation which was given freedom will “be” in the realm of God, and not the rest. Everything works following the laws of physics and the natural flow of things, except who? The free, us. This is our trial to either take an “almost blind” path of gratitude (quality) for our existence in all of its pristine wonders, or consider that whatever made us be in it isn’t worthy of being gratified and worshiped, insisting that by being so we’re smarter. Who searches finds, did you search? Keep searching until you find, and you will.

This is going farther than we expected, we reached our conviction limits. We can close this when you want because I don’t think it can hold more debate. : )

b – from my point of view, It is clear that I brought forth a rich conclusion of the “non-physiological” organs, unlike the scottsman fallacy.

Could you describe what you mean by "scotsman fallacy"? Most of us here are well familiar with the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but from your context I'm not sure that it means the same thing to you as it does to us. Secondly, could you explain how it has any relevance to what you're talking about?

You can refuse my conclusion as much as anti-matter was an irrational fantasy before its discovery. Anti-matter is spiritual, can’t you see? It is a step inside the spiritual realm. What is “spiritual” if everything un-proved with an equation doesn’t exist? When anti-matter was seen, spirituality has been proven. Spirituality is the realm beyond the physical and the organic, thus anti-matter.

Welcome Tq.Atallah.

Calling anti-matter something related to spirituality seems a bit strange. Since there isn't such a relationship. It is real. It is used in PET scans by medical personnel, which wouldn't work otherwise. And while getting the bill for a PET scan might cause one to say "Oh God!", there is no other connection.

The fact that we at one time didn't know it existed, and then at one time theorized that it must exist, as per our mathematics, then we found it, then we used it, does not mean that we were on a spiritual path. We were just looking. Which is adequate. There is no need to go to la-la land over the subject.

To say that it was an irrational fantasy when it was predicted by mathematics is patently silly. Yes, such possibilities were considered earlier than the math, but never taken seriously. Then anti-electrons were theorized in 1929 and discovered in 1932. And from that point on the have been accepted as real. No spirituality was implied or involved.

If your god wants me to know he exists, he knows how. If he is real, his dependence upon a variety guessing people who all have different takes on exactly what their god is seems to be rather ineffective. Yes, it works for some of the people some of the time, but it doesn't work all the time. Which would seem to indicate, if your god is real, that he is a bit more incompetent than the religious claim.

Notice that all gods are invisible to humans, no matter which religion claims them. There is a reason for this. A real god using the same technique as all the unreal gods makes no sense. That there are simply no gods makes lots of sense.

My words are not my rationalizations, they are based on scriptures which I happen to believe in after reading, and which were written 1400 years before superman and some of them much much earlier.

That fact that you believe certain old texts doesn't make them true - anymore than it makes other religious texts true. You need to demonstrate how you think you know these 'scriptures' are true, not just assert it. Further, it makes no difference how old an old book is. People have been lying and making up false religions for a long time - longer than Islam, Christianity, or Judaism - so what. You need more than just claims in old books to demonstrate a supernatural event took place.

Since we have a “knowledge” gap between us, I prefer to keep the Godly scriptures out of our discussion as much as possible and remain in the light of us and “awareness” to try to push my points. Then anyone who feels interested can do a proper academic search and read the revelation.

I'm sorry, that's just not going to happen. You see, it is your "scriptures" which are the very assumption in question. Again, you need to demonstrate how you think you know these things are "revelation" - not just claim it or assert it.

b – from my point of view, It is clear that I brought forth a rich conclusion of the “non-physiological” organs, unlike the scottsman fallacy.

A conclusion which you did not backup with any evidence or rational argument - just an assertion - is easily dismissed (b/c such assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

Well, your "point of view" is in error and that's what my rebuttal showed. It is irrational to claim that all amputees have the ability to "heal themselves" (which you have not shown is true) and then, when presented with counter evidence, just claim they are not a "real" amputee or that they don't fit the category you have made for them.

Another exp: -We can say that the composed tissue, nerves, muscles, blood… make the hand an organ of function. With the hand we can build a wall. With what can we go to space? Not with the hand of course, because the gorilla also have a hand and isn’t able even to count to three. We go to space with invisible organs; awareness, intelligence, motivation, which the gorilla also have but not good enough. So it is conclusive that there are non-physical organs and non-physical matter, everywhere.

What you have just demonstrated here is called The Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. Awareness, intelligence, and motivation etc have nothing to do with the supernatural. They are descriptions that we human beings put upon things that we experience. And just because you personally cannot understand or explain something does not mean there are "immaterial" things. Supernatural explanations are the LAST place to think about - not the first. Why? Because you can use such explanations for just about any unknown phenomena. They are unreliable and useless for separating fact from fiction.

hai capito? You can refuse my conclusion as much as anti-matter was an irrational fantasy before its discovery. Anti-matter is spiritual, can’t you see? It is a step inside the spiritual realm. What is “spiritual” if everything un-proved with an equation doesn’t exist? When anti-matter was seen, spirituality has been proven. Spirituality is the realm beyond the physical and the organic, thus anti-matter. Please lets go forward with this correspondence or I’ll ignore you. I can’t make a blind man see his heart if he’s dead.

You can choose to ignore me, and that's fine if you do. I'll just take it that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are actually true (just one more example of religious credulity) and that you just want to believe what you already assumed from the beginning (regarding the Koran, the Hadith, or any other part of it). But if you continue this discussion that's fine too. Neither choice will make me more gullible.

Now, do you have a full and competent understanding of particle physics? How well do you understand (or have you studied) the nature of anti-matter? I ask because your interpretation of the nature of anti-matter is in stark contradiction to those that discovered anti-matter. Nice double standard! So you're willing to quote the science when you think it goes along with your religious assumptions but not when they go contrary to them. I wonder why that is.

d – I can’t resist the temptation, I fell victim ? I have to say this; The scriptures which my points are based upon happen to be credible since they also tell me that “all matter of earth and heavens were stuck together in a singularity and God cleft them asunder and created every living thing from water” another place He says “the same way We made that creation, We will repeat it again as much as We please” and another place “We created the spaces and earth (as in solid matter in it) and We’re truly expanding it” and more importantly in few other places “We will show the unbelievers that this revelation is divinely revealed by showing them in it, signs in themselves and in the horizons until it becomes clear to them that it is truly divine from their creator” and “…for every appointed generation in history there are appointed proofs of the divinity of this revelation”.

No, I'm just wondering why you keep quoting the Koran, just like the Christians quote the bible, or thousands of other gullible men have quoted their religious texts throughout history - as if your Koran holds some kind of 'weight' here. It doesn't. And even if you could show that one thing (or more) were scientifically correct in the Koran, such statements wouldn't help you one ioto (just like any other religion) in demonstrating a deity "Allah" was responsible - nor would it show that any other thing was correct. You seem to be suffering from the same kind of credulity and gullibility that all other religious people in the world do. However, that gullibility isn't satisfactory to justify belief in the supernatural.

Everything works following the laws of physics and the natural flow of things, except who? The free, us. This is our trial to either take an “almost blind” path of gratitude (quality) for our existence in all of its pristine wonders, or consider that whatever made us be in it isn’t worthy of being gratified and worshiped, insisting that by being so we’re smarter. Who searches finds, did you search? Keep searching until you find, and you will.

Now you're just preaching. But you've also made yet another assumption - that there is any such thing as a supernatural "freewill". That is, yet again, another unsupported assertion. Again, just because you are ignorant and call things "pristine wonders", or assume some supernatural divine 'mind' for "creation", doesn't make your beliefs any more true. It seems, unfortunately, that your standard of evidence is a bit too low when it comes to your religion.

So you mean to tell me that in all of history there has only been one 'documented' case of god 'healing' an amputee.

in Spain...

...in the 17th century

Not to say that I don't believe you the story (what the hell, yes I am). I sincerely doubt that this case is legit.

Either way something more recent would help god's credibility along with the story that happened in Calanda Spain. Something more recent for doctors and scientists to actually look at and go, "hey, what the hell happened?!?!"

Do you have a more recent case of an amputee being healed?

« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 08:55:57 PM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

It is a very suspicious story if you give it any thought. Does it not strike you as far-fetched (utterly bizarre, really) that God would retrieve his old, gangrenous, rotting leg from a graveyard where it had lain for several months, somehow un-rot and un-gangrene it, yet not restore it to an actually healthy or fully functional state, and then re-attach as-is, instead of regrowing a new one?

Big time. Cutesy word games are so annoying in so many ways. Like, for example, if this really were some kind of profound thing about the existence of god and what his nature is, you'd think it would work in all languages, not just English.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Big time. Cutesy word games are so annoying in so many ways. Like, for example, if this really were some kind of profound thing about the existence of god and what his nature is, you'd think it would work in all languages, not just English.

Boy, you guys, have creative imaginations. Reminds me of the folks that wrote the Biblical Prophecies. My accusation for this group, is that you've just created your own religion. Another notional label to enhance identity. That's egoic, isn't it. You have your own club, your own rules, suffer from denial. Stick your head in the sand when your ideals are threatened. Sounds like religion to me :-)

If you remove all the Miraculous and Inventive ( the "woo" according to your own cutesy word games) stuff from all religious/spiritual interpretations, and there is historical evidence to suggest that this should be the case, what you're left with is a duality that relates to Go(o)d and Ego. You know ego, I'm sure. We all should unless we're in denial :-)

“An old Cherokee told his grandson “There is a battle between two wolves inside us all.

One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is go(o)d. It is joy, love, peace, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.”

The boy thought about it, and asked “Grandfather, which wolf wins?”The old man quietly replied. “The one you feed.”

Big time. Cutesy word games are so annoying in so many ways. Like, for example, if this really were some kind of profound thing about the existence of god and what his nature is, you'd think it would work in all languages, not just English.

Boy, you guys, have creative imaginations. Reminds me of the folks that wrote the Biblical Prophecies. My accusation for this group, is that you've just created your own religion. Another notional label to enhance identity. That's egoic, isn't it. You have your own club, your own rules, suffer from denial. Stick your head in the sand when your ideals are threatened. Sounds like religion to me :-)

Wow, a bit thin-skinned. Someone calls you out for a pointless and legitimately irritating behavior[1] and how do you respond? By launching an off-topic attack on the messenger(s), of course. Real mature there, bub.

That "Go(o)d" thing makes you look a blathering idiot, by the way, so you really should be grateful for having it pointed out, even if unpleasant (much like having someone tell you that your shirt is inside-out, or that you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe).

Big time. Cutesy word games are so annoying in so many ways. Like, for example, if this really were some kind of profound thing about the existence of god and what his nature is, you'd think it would work in all languages, not just English.

Boy, you guys, have creative imaginations. Reminds me of the folks that wrote the Biblical Prophecies. My accusation for this group, is that you've just created your own religion. Another notional label to enhance identity. That's egoic, isn't it. You have your own club, your own rules, suffer from denial. Stick your head in the sand when your ideals are threatened. Sounds like religion to me :-)

Wow, a bit thin-skinned. Someone calls you out for a pointless and legitimately irritating behavior[1] and how do you respond? By launching an off-topic attack on the messenger(s), of course. Real mature there, bub.

That "Go(o)d" thing makes you look a blathering idiot, by the way, so you really should be grateful for having it pointed out, even if unpleasant (much like having someone tell you that your shirt is inside-out, or that you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe).

Not really, just saying how I see it. It's not unpleasant at all. Go for it, do your best. So far its not all that flash.

Just wish you guys could put up some decent opposition. You seem to prefer the short wise cracks. And I don't think its off topic at all. I actually think its a pretty accurate assessment. Of course, you could try and prove me wrong. :-) So far, I don't see any evidence to the contrary. I mean look how long you guys have been here and you're still banging on with the same old stuff. Don't you get bored? Or do you like the feeling you get from being "right". Plato would class that as prideful behaviour, me thinks. :-) :-)

This thing called Go(o)d doesn't heel amputees because miracles are a work of fiction designed to serve the powerful.

This thing called Go(o)d is similar in concept as these things called love and authentic selflessness. So you may as well ask why love doesn't heel amputees.

It may however, raise the amputees spirits. Now that's a Go(O)d thing, perhaps :-)

So then you admit that there is no supernatural "Go(O)d", right? Because you know that things like love and "selflessness" are descriptions we humans put upon things we experience - neither have anything to do with the supernatural, miraculous, or violations of the laws of known physics.

This thing called Go(o)d doesn't heel amputees because miracles are a work of fiction designed to serve the powerful.

This thing called Go(o)d is similar in concept as these things called love and authentic selflessness. So you may as well ask why love doesn't heel amputees.

It may however, raise the amputees spirits. Now that's a Go(O)d thing, perhaps :-)

So then you admit that there is no supernatural "Go(O)d", right? Because you know that things like love and "selflessness" are descriptions we humans put upon things we experience - neither have anything to do with the supernatural, miraculous, or violations of the laws of known physics.

Boy, you guys, have creative imaginations. Reminds me of the folks that wrote the Biblical Prophecies. My accusation for this group, is that you've just created your own religion. Another notional label to enhance identity. That's egoic, isn't it. You have your own club, your own rules, suffer from denial. Stick your head in the sand when your ideals are threatened. Sounds like religion to me

What the fuck are you talking about? I said your use of parenthesis inside a word - go(o)d - is fucking obnoxious. That was my only point. You really think that sounds like religion? Just what kind of fucking moron are you?What is it that you think I am in denial about? What ideals are threatened that are causing me to point out that using "go(o)d" is, you know, fucking stupid?